{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_mechanism_context_external20_20260804","research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp11_external_scrutiny_20260804","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy","opaque_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__philosophy__C","search_lanes":{"direct_problem":{"queries":["philosophy research platform automated decide whether claim follows theory formal logic","formal philosophy platform argument consequence automated reasoning","philosophy platform Boolean verdict claim follows formal theory"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3"],"no_result_note":"No retained source documents a philosophy platform promising correct, terminating yes/no consequence decisions for every submission or converting timeouts to false. The closest platforms expressly constrain inputs or check supplied proofs."},"closest_prior_art":{"queries":["automated theorem proving philosophy theory claim follows platform LogiKEy Isabelle philosophy","computational metaphysics automated reasoning philosophical theories theorem prover Benzmuller Zalta","formal philosophy automated reasoning platform proof assistant philosophical arguments","exact philosophy automated reasoning theorem prover"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null},"historical_terminology":{"queries":["Entscheidungsproblem Church Turing no algorithm validity first order logic original","Alonzo Church 1936 A note on the Entscheidungsproblem PDF original","Entscheidungsproblem philosophical automated reasoning platform"],"source_ids":["SRC4","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null},"products_practices_standards":{"queries":["site:smt-lib.org standard response unknown solver check-sat timeout","TPTP SZS ontology theorem prover status timeout unknown official","site:w3.org OWL 2 profiles decidability reasoning recommendation"],"source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"no_result_note":null},"non_english_regional":{"queries":["deutsch automatisierte Prüfung philosophischer Argumente Gültigkeit Theorembeweiser","français plateforme philosophie raisonnement automatisé validité arguments logique","français validation calcul des prédicats méthode ne permet pas conclure tous les cas"],"source_ids":["SRC8"],"no_result_note":"French terminology located the distinction between decidable propositional validation and predicate-calculus procedures that cannot conclude in every case; no regional source located the hypothesized universal philosophy-platform guarantee."},"composition_subproblems":{"queries":["formal philosophy automated reasoning language semantics proof assistant philosophical arguments","SMT-LIB check-sat unknown reason-unknown incomplete timeout","OWL profile fragment expressive power decidability reasoning","SZS ontology unknown timeout proof verification status"],"source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"],"no_result_note":null}},"sources":[{"source_id":"SRC1","title":"Axiom: The 1st Social Platform for Logically Valid Reasoning","url":"https://axiomreason.com/","publisher":"Axiom","date_or_year":"2026 (accessed 2026-08-04)","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["A live philosophy-adjacent social platform represents arguments formally and requires Lean 4 proofs connecting conclusions to stated premises.","The platform propagates formal consequences and can restrict publishing after a derived contradiction.","Its public description promises machine-checked proof validity, not universal automated discovery or terminating yes/no decisions for every philosophical claim."]},{"source_id":"SRC2","title":"Oak","url":"https://oakproof.org/","publisher":"Oak Project","date_or_year":"Accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"FIRST_PARTY_PRODUCT","language":"English","claims_supported":["Oak explicitly accepts proofs concerning philosophy as well as mathematics and theology.","It checks user-supplied proof steps by translation to first-order logic and an external theorem prover.","It stops and reports a problem when a step is invalid or the prover exceeds its work allowance, rather than claiming a universally terminating decision procedure."]},{"source_id":"SRC3","title":"Automated Reasoning","url":"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-automated/","publisher":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University","date_or_year":"2024 substantive revision","source_type":"SECONDARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Automated-reasoning system design conventionally specifies the problem class, representation language, inference mechanism, and resource behavior.","Proof search may end with a proof, a detected absence of proof, or exhaustion of resources.","Automated theorem provers and proof assistants have already been applied to formalized philosophical arguments and metaphysical theories.","Selecting among logics and faithfully formalizing assumptions remain essential because no universal deontic logic is accepted."]},{"source_id":"SRC4","title":"A Note on the Entscheidungsproblem","url":"https://courses.fit.cvut.cz/NI-VYC/church-a-note-on-the-entscheidungsproblem.pdf","publisher":"Association for Symbolic Logic, Journal of Symbolic Logic","date_or_year":"1936","source_type":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","language":"English","claims_supported":["Church states that the general Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable for sufficiently expressive symbolic systems under the paper's stated assumptions.","The result supplies historical primary evidence against an unrestricted exact terminating decision demand, but it does not automatically apply to every restricted language or informal philosophical task."]},{"source_id":"SRC5","title":"The SMT-LIB Standard, Version 2.7","url":"https://smt-lib.org/papers/smt-lib-reference-v2.7-r2025-07-07.pdf","publisher":"SMT-LIB Initiative","date_or_year":"2025","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["The standard distinguishes sat, unsat, and unknown outcomes.","It supports reporting reasons for unknown, including resource exhaustion and known incompleteness for the queried formula class.","It requires declaring a logic and exposes solver version information, providing prior art for scoped and versioned guarantee records."]},{"source_id":"SRC6","title":"OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles (Second Edition)","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/","publisher":"World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)","date_or_year":"2012","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["OWL profiles are enforceable fragments that trade expressive power for more efficient reasoning.","The recommendation specifies profile grammars and compares the decidability and complexity of reasoning problems.","It distinguishes undecidable, decidable, and open-decidability cases, closely matching a solvability-status map."]},{"source_id":"SRC7","title":"SZS Ontology","url":"https://tptp.org/UserDocs/SZSOntology/","publisher":"TPTP Project","date_or_year":"Accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OFFICIAL_STANDARD","language":"English","claims_supported":["The SZS ontology separately represents theorem, counter-satisfiable, unknown, timeout, resource exhaustion, incompleteness, inappropriate input, and verification status.","It explicitly states that lack of success must be characterized precisely and is not equivalent to logical failure.","It associates success statuses with evidence forms such as proofs, derivations, refutations, and interpretations."]},{"source_id":"SRC8","title":"Validation","url":"https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/philosophie/validation/192313","publisher":"Larousse, Dictionnaire de la philosophie","date_or_year":"Accessed 2026-08-04","source_type":"OTHER","language":"French","claims_supported":["The entry distinguishes truth-table decision procedures for propositional logic from predicate-calculus methods that do not conclude in all cases.","It states that some predicate formulas can be neither established valid nor established invalid by the described procedure, supporting non-Boolean status handling in philosophical terminology."]}],"problem_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"The general solvability hazard is real: unrestricted first-order consequence is undecidable, resource-bounded proof searches can be inconclusive, and philosophical theories have been mechanized. However, the specific operational problem is not externally established. The closest public platforms, Axiom and Oak, constrain formal representation or check supplied proofs; neither publicly promises a correct terminating yes/no answer for every philosophical submission, and Oak does not describe work exhaustion as false.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC8"],"uncertainty":"Public marketing and documentation may omit backend status coercion, service-level guarantees, or editorial practices. No logs, interface specification, user reports, or policy documents evidenced the hypothesized universal promise or timeout-to-false conversion."},"adopter_evidence":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","finding":"Axiom and Oak identify concrete philosophy-adjacent platform operators who could authorize status and scope changes, while automated-reasoning standards identify an established engineering community. The proposal's actual platform and claimed methods board are nevertheless unnamed, and no retained source shows that either named platform has the hypothesized defect or would adopt the audit.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC5","SRC7"],"uncertainty":"Product ownership is identifiable at the organizational level, but the accountable decision-maker, deployment authority, and affected production workflow are not documented."},"implementation_evidence":{"status":"PARTLY_SUPPORTED","finding":"Most technical components are feasible and already instantiated separately: declared logics, decidable fragments, proof witnesses, distinct unknown/timeout/incomplete statuses, version identifiers, and formalized philosophical theories. Evidence does not establish the proposed integrated governance workflow, independent semantic-fidelity review, recheck triggers, or benefits from a 25-case philosophy-platform audit.","source_ids":["SRC2","SRC3","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"],"uncertainty":"Formal status machinery does not solve the encoding-fidelity problem. No comparative pilot measures reviewer agreement, semantic coverage, status separation, or downstream reliance."},"prior_art":{"disposition":"ADJACENT_PRIOR_ART","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Axiom formal-reasoning social platform","source_ids":["SRC1"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Uses explicit formal commitments, Lean-checked proofs, transparent reasoning, and automatic consequence propagation in a public ideas platform.","remaining_difference":"It checks consequences supported by proof artifacts and does not advertise a universal terminating consequence decider, an abstention lattice, boundary audits, or version-triggered reclassification."},{"name":"Oak proof checker for philosophy and other domains","source_ids":["SRC2"],"same_problem":false,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Requires a formal language, recognizes proof witnesses through a first-order prover, and stops when a resource allowance is exceeded.","remaining_difference":"It checks submitted proofs rather than deciding every theory-claim pair, and its public interface collapses invalidity and resource exhaustion into a generic problem instead of the proposal's full status lattice."},{"name":"SMT-LIB and SZS result/status conventions","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC7"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Established automated-reasoning practice declares the logic and separates success, counterexample, unknown, timeout, incompleteness, resource exhaustion, and evidence status.","remaining_difference":"These are solver-facing conventions, not a philosophy-platform governance process addressing semantic fidelity, representative traditions, expert escalation, or deployment authorization."},{"name":"OWL 2 profiles and computational-property map","source_ids":["SRC6"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"Defines enforceable language fragments and publishes their expressivity, decidability, and complexity boundaries.","remaining_difference":"It concerns ontology reasoning rather than arbitrary philosophical theories and does not test whether narrowing preserves the meaning or coverage of philosophical arguments."},{"name":"Computational philosophy and automated reasoning practice","source_ids":["SRC3","SRC4","SRC8"],"same_problem":true,"same_causal_lever":true,"overlap":"The decision-problem boundary is classical, and theorem provers already analyze formalized metaphysical and philosophical arguments relative to selected logics and assumptions.","remaining_difference":"The literature supports model-relative analysis, not the proposed operational audit of a platform that allegedly forces all outputs to Boolean verdicts."}],"contrastive_claim_remaining":"For an identified philosophy platform that presently emits Boolean consequence verdicts, an independently reviewed boundary map combined with distinct false, unknown, timeout, and out-of-scope outputs will improve correct status separation and reviewer agreement without unacceptable loss of semantic coverage, beyond the platform's current checker behavior and generic solver standards.","contrastive_claim_falsifier":"The claim is falsified if no target platform makes the universal Boolean guarantee, or if a preregistered shadow audit finds no guarantee mismatch and no improvement in status separation or reviewer agreement, or if the required formalization materially changes representative claims or systematically excludes relevant philosophical traditions.","confidence":"MODERATE","search_limitations":"The bounded search examined eight opened public sources across six lanes. It did not inspect private product code, logs, contracts, unpublished policies, paywalled full literature, patents, or every language and jurisdiction. The search cannot establish world novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, or realized impact."},"researchability_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"FAIL","rationale":"External evidence supports the general computability boundary but not the proposal's defining deployed condition: a philosophy platform promising universally correct terminating Boolean consequence decisions or treating timeout as false. The closest products publicly describe narrower proof-checking contracts.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4"]},"identifiable_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"INDETERMINATE","rationale":"Axiom and Oak are identifiable candidate organizations, but the defective target platform, accountable methods board, and authority to change its production outputs are not identified.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"Despite close standards and product analogues, a platform-level claim remains testable: whether boundary mapping plus differentiated abstention states improves status accuracy and reviewer agreement while preserving philosophical meaning.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"A nonbinding 25-case shadow audit is finite and measurable. It can record declared logic, encoding fidelity, actual output, timeout handling, reviewer agreement, and fallback routing without affecting submissions; SMT-LIB and SZS provide comparison categories.","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC7"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"The shadow-only design, independent review, explicit prohibition on automatic rejection, and rollback to human-only unresolved status bound the immediate risk. Established standards demonstrate non-Boolean outputs that avoid equating resource limits with falsity.","source_ids":["SRC5","SRC7"]},"adequate_search_evidence":{"status":"PASS","rationale":"All six required lanes were searched adversarially; exactly eight direct sources were retained and opened, spanning six independent publishers and including primary research, official standards, and first-party products. Direct phrase misses were not treated as novelty evidence.","source_ids":["SRC1","SRC2","SRC3","SRC4","SRC5","SRC6","SRC7","SRC8"]}},"strict_success":false,"screen_survival":false,"remaining_research_value":"MODERATE","recommended_next_step":"Identify one deployed philosophy platform and obtain its public or operator-confirmed input contract, output/status specification, termination promise, timeout behavior, and decision authority. Proceed to the preregistered 25-case shadow audit only if those documents reveal a universal Boolean guarantee or status coercion; otherwise record the problem falsifier and stop.","world_novelty_boundary":"This bounded public-web review found classical and current adjacent prior art but no source documenting the exact hypothesized deployment defect. That absence is not evidence of world novelty. The review establishes neither patentability nor freedom to operate, market size, comprehensive adoption, or realized impact."}